I believe the main difference is that training is a one-time cost. Thus lacking training competitiveness is less an issue than lacking performance competitiveness, as the latter is a recurrent cost.
But if you could always get arbitrarily high performance with long enough training, then claiming “the performance isn’t high enough” is equivalent to saying “we haven’t trained long enough”. So it reduces to just one dimension of competitiveness, which is how steep the curve of improvement over time is on average.
For the actual reason I think it makes sense to separate these, see my other comment: you can’t usually get arbitrarily high performance by training longer.
I believe the main difference is that training is a one-time cost. Thus lacking training competitiveness is less an issue than lacking performance competitiveness, as the latter is a recurrent cost.
But if you could always get arbitrarily high performance with long enough training, then claiming “the performance isn’t high enough” is equivalent to saying “we haven’t trained long enough”. So it reduces to just one dimension of competitiveness, which is how steep the curve of improvement over time is on average.
For the actual reason I think it makes sense to separate these, see my other comment: you can’t usually get arbitrarily high performance by training longer.